cf141q5325

He gives a definition of cyberpunks in the first sentence (people who use all available data input to think for themselves) and elaborates on the role they have in society. Its a nice frame he paints and might be nice for some peoples self image and perspective onto reality.

I am very cautious of recommending anything, peoples time is precious. And different people will find different things interesting.

I think its relevant on the topic (Learys interaction with the digital), but further then that its up to the interests of the reader.

That just brings us back to not properly communicating or understanding the terms of the interaction. If you get it at cost and the shipping company wont cover the damage, somebody will. In this case the recipient will cover shipping to the service center and pine will cover the actual repairs. Thats the deal. Not understanding it is one thing, doing so and demand otherwise later another.

edit: again, not defending their packaging skills here.

Thanks. I am asking because you can (and absolutely should) work on people accidentally ending up in an interaction they werent supposed to be in. Thats a problem you can work on, especially with your feedback about disclaimer fatigue. And having a look now the current order page is indeed quite the clusterfuck. When i ordered it was just one big red line right above order button, Either way, its something that can be worked on cooperatively. Its in both parties interest that this doesnt happen.

What is a lot harder, and needs additional information about the motivation, is why somebody would consciously engage into this interaction and then demand it to be a different format. Because then it becomes a task of filtering out motivated people.

Not going to argue on that. I am just very confused by the sentiment of people ordering something as if it was a consumer product despite knowing the only reason they can get one is because they are using the mechanism for developers to get hardware at cost. Which means the obvious solution is stricter screening of who can get one.

I am not arguing that you dont have the rights as a consumer. You obviously have.

I confused why somebody would claim them despite knowing that the only reason they can get a device in the first place is because they are ordering something that is not meant to be ordered by consumers. They arent priced in. You used a mechanism and involved yourself into an interaction you werent supposed to be in. Because the fix for the problem at hand is no longer allowing just anyone to get a devkit. Because the whole point is to get the device to developers as cheap as possible.

edit: Or differently put, the problem here isnt that OP got damaged hardware but that he ended up in an interaction he wasnt supposed to be in. And keeping people from accidentally ending up in there is one problem you can work on, but what motivates people to do this consciously?

I absolutely understand the argument when it comes to ordinary commercial interactions. This isnt supposed to be one though. Its the solution to the problem how you can get hardware to developers as cheap as possible. I do not understand why anyone would insert themselves into this interaction.

I understand the frustration if you got into this not understanding what was going on. In which case even more effort needs to be made to make sure such misunderstandings dont occur again. Thats why i am asking where exactly the problem stemmed from.

If i personally send you a prototype at cost and you demand it to be treated like a normal customer interaction the result will be that i wont be sending out prototypes at cost to just anyone any longer. Thats quite the bummer for people who wanted one.

So the question is how can we connect group A (manufacturer) and B(eager testers) without group C(Consumers) getting caught in the whole thing?

edit: Not saying what Pine is doing is good or bad, but the core problem isnt specific to Pine and many tinkerers might end up in this situation one day. And charging above cost is extremely counterproductive in some situations because it locks out some developers.

They have a bright red notice on the product page begging consumers not to order it. Doing it regardless and demanding it to be treated like an ordinary customer interaction makes sure that this approach will be less likely to be repeated in the future.

I do not understand why somebody would do such a thing consciously. We have the situation that somebody wants to distribute the hardware at cost for development. And a big group of people who want exactly this deal. Why is there a need on a personal level to basically sabotage this? Or what am i missing that doesnt make this behavior really dickish?

edit: And again, i am not talking about people who misunderstood what exactly was offered here. That absolutly shouldnt happen. I just dont understand why somebody would do this consciously.

Why did you order it if you didnt agree with that policy? They warn you on the product page with giant red lettering. Did you not understand it? Or that it is not a consumer product?

Per coincident, just yesterday i read his Cyber Punk paper

>The Cyber Punk The Individual As Reality Pilot, By Timothy Leary (1988)

https://archive.org/details/the-cyber-punk-the-individual-as...

> most from non-scientists

I am really curious about your source on this.

This whole "having good intentions" as justification for anything scares the living crap out of me. I really believed we for once learned from history. Even letting the non trivial problem of defining what is "good" aside, intentions and results are very very different things. Intentions describe your own story for your actions. Its about how your see yourself. That has no impact on the result in reality. Valuing intentions instead of outcome is actual insanity.

And it only got worse once i realized that this isnt some kind of horrible stupid accident but people do this to deal with an utterly horrible reality they cant cope with anymore. So they just gave up on reality and instead focused on a story they can tell themselves to feel good despite reality.

edit: Just to point it out, even if both of those very obvious fundamental problems would be addressed, what would be left would be "the ends justify the means". Its utterly horrific from which ever angle you look at it.

I know, i was agreeing with you. The long covid numbers are what makes COVID worse. I was pointing out that there is no way around those.

I am hard pressed to assume that you are unaware that the tests we are talking about here are lateral flow tests. And while their accuracy is a lot worse then PCR tests, it is still a far far better indicator for whether you are infected then your vaccine status. Just compare the lateral flow test accuracy with the vaccine efficiency at preventing infecting others.

It is really quite simple. Nobody with any knowledge on the topic can in good conscience say that you can use the fact that you are vaccinated with a leaky vaccine as an indicator for not being infected. That is quite simply not how the COVID vaccines work. This is extremly dangerous misinformation. And due to the fact who spreads it, a lot more dangerous then any boogeymen of idiots drinking bleach. Focusing on those caricatures and ignoring misinformation spread by officials is utterly irresponsible and evidence for a lack of scientific integrity.

It is quite the brain acrobatics to focus on it not being a test, duh, but a document. The point is what this document is supposed to document. And that is there being no indication, that you are infected with COVID.

The term is actually well defined, especially what is supposed to be documented by it. I am German and they borrowed it straight from the government regulation. The "Negativnachweis" https://www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de/bshe/document/jlr-Coron...

>(1) Soweit nach dieser Verordnung der Nachweis zu führen ist, dass keine Anhaltspunkte für eine Infektion mit dem SARS-CoV-2-Virus vorliegen (Negativnachweis), kann dies erfolgen durch

>(1) >If, according to this regulation, proof must be provide that there are no indications of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus (negative proof), this can be done by...

And you being vaccinated with a leaky vaccine doesnt mean there is no indication you are infected. Not in any way. This is misinformation that actually kills, because it allows COVID to spread. And its not information spread by some morons who drink bleach but by the government and quite literally taped to the doors of the figurative house of science. Because people lack the integrity to call out bullshit for what it is.

Apparently i am a bit slow. Please do elaborate, i am really curious how your vaccine status can be used to verify that there is no indication for a covid infection.

Again, i get what problem you are trying to solve, but i fail how you can prevent yourself from falling down an echo chamber this way.

Sure but its unfortunately not optional if you dont want to end up in a echochamber. And being in one gets dangerous fast.

If you filter something as bullshit, you should at least be able to say why it is bullshit, outside of just who wrote it.

I had a sign at my university entrance asking a vaccine status or current test as a "negative proof for covid19". As in your vaccine status proofs you dont have covid19.

Any scientist who isnt deeply ashamed of this should really get the money for their degree back.

Pretending that vaccines are in any way safer then or as safe as actual tests is simply horrific.

Which vaccines have very little influence on.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01453-0 relating to the study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01840-0

I think it boils down to a vicious cycle. Institutions are worried about a loss of credibility and are as a result very unwilling to acknowledge where they have been wrong, changed their minds or about any uncertainties that still exist. As a result people get the wrong impression and highly overestimate the competence of those institutions, and the confidence that their solutions warrant. Which makes those institutions even more afraid of loosing credibility. Which lead to some very comical parallel realities, like the WHO not aknowleding that COVID was airborne till 2022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30939200

Or differently put, if you have absolutely unrealistic expectations and deferred any critical thinking to another party, you are putting said party in a very very difficult situation. And if they not just lack the backbone to tell you this, but start pretending to be that competent and certain to match your expectations, it can become very dangerous.

This widely varies by countries, as well as often states. It entails what criteria you use for your statistic and how you collect the data. Because unfortunately data collection is one of those things that is assumed to be trivial, but actually quite difficult and costly. Especially in the beginning, you just took the rate of positively tested patients. Because you could do so at a single point in your hospital, the testing center. Figuring out information concerning individual patients means having to collect this information for every individual as well.

Let me also point out that this wasnt some grand failure. We were in a situation in which what ever information we could get was really helpful. But you have to be aware, that there is not magic box somewhere that spits out perfect information. All data collection has its limitations, its why we still know very little about long covid. Because getting that data is incredibly difficult, especially at scale.

>Since most of the mask protection comes from other people’s masks not their own.

Thats a bit outdated information. Yes, some cloth mask doesnt protect you. A correctly worn N95 however does offer a ~99%+ protection against contracting COVID. Once they are available in enough numbers to go to non medicinal personal as well, which they have been for years at this point, personal protection does absolutely work.

I fail to see how you could use your argument to vaccinate the ~75% who already have natural immunity.

And even for the rest, becoming a severe covid case isnt a lottery. Risk groups are a very real thing.

Please also consider more then just who wrote it. Otherwise you end up in an echo chamber. Either they can make a valid point or they cant.

Money creation also functions via loaning money into existence. As long as people keep loaning, no money printing is necessary.

>The vast majority of calories our bodies burn are upkeep related and this upkeep does not change significantly based on our diet.

Apparently it does if you went on too many yoyo diets. Look up reverse dieting to increase your sustaining calorie level again, it works in both directions. Its more or less the efficiency with which your metabolism functions

I liked Jeff Nippards Video with Eric Trexler on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiYJW9pViaM https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Trexler

From 2019

This isnt a matter of believe. There are lots of prisoners who went on hunger strikes and perished from it. With them starting with a background of a normal western diet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_hunger_strike 45-73 days till death with most lasting 60 days.

Holger Meins lasted 58 days despite forced feeding. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holger_Meins

List is obviously a lot longer but they offer a great dataset

>suicide programming

The autonomous car crashing itself with you on board instead of running over a child. Its what these posts here are about if you look at the initial post. The question is, does the distinction that the rational of implied culpability only applies to civil law have any relevance for this example?

You answered that one gets you thrown in prison and the other sued. I dont see the relevance of this for the question at hand.

I didnt see the relevance of the death penalty either, i was guessing how criminal law might be more applicable then civil law. And its the only thing i could come up with.

I was aware of that. But unless you make the argument that a suicide programming would be a hard coded death penalty for careless driving, and as such only possible under criminal law, i still dont see how its relevant to the example at hand. Could you elaborate?